10 Fundamentals for Smart Permitting
Co-written by Danielle Bissett, Becca Madsen and Jessie Mahr
The Trump-Vance Administration is excited about permitting reform, so are we! And, we want to see smart permitting. Efficient and effective permitting should be about getting to “yes” or “no” on projects faster—and we know there are hundreds of ways to do that without minimizing scientific rigor, transparency, and public participation. We’ve researched dozens of federal and state policies and technologies that have sped up permitting.
Here, we synthesize our 10 fundamentals for improving the environmental review and permitting process.
1) Fund Projects, Not Paperwork.
Permitting inefficiencies currently consume up to one-third of restoration project budgets – money that could be spent on actual implementation. Excessive paperwork and focus on process creates a false sense of certainty about project outcomes. While meaningful engagement and quality reviews are essential, we've seen successful examples across state and federal agencies of streamlining these processes without compromising standards. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' - which has consistently missed permit processing deadlines - recently directed staff to view proposed wetland restoration plans as a strategy, de-emphasizing the level of detail needed to a “60% level of design detail.” This is a paradigm shift that moves staff away from iterating and re-iterating on creating a ‘perfect plan,’ and instead focus on the project outcomes, while allowing the project developer flexibility to address the unexpected. Unless a project is uniquely complex, we think permitting shouldn’t exceed 10% of a project’s budget and should take less than 1 year to approve.
2) Let’s get to ‘yes’ or ‘no’ faster.
Right now, permit applicants have to navigate multiple agencies and multiple levels of government (local, state, and federal) to get the necessary paperwork completed. Those looking to build things should have one entry point with the government where they can both receive all materials they need for a project up front and submit all materials, and then agencies work together on the back end to evaluate the project, provide feedback, and issue permits. Some states are taking strides. For example, Washington state’s Office for Regulatory Innovation & Assistance (OIRA) created an online portal, graphic schematics of permit processes, and even a joint permit that covers six local, state, and federal permit requirements related to aquatic resources.
Even when applicants can successfully understand their permitting needs, they are often faced with inconsistent and unpredictable requirements and requests for more and more information. Some interviewees have described regulatory staff as looking for reasons to say ‘no’ rather than ‘yes.’ However, not all permit applications are high quality, which adds more time to a regulator’s review. We need both permit applicants and regulators on the same page from the starting point. Templates for applications, training resources for applications, checklists or rubrics for reviewing application completeness, and guidance from leadership can both guide agency culture and create predictability. The Corps directives guide staff to identify issues with proposed wetland and stream restoration projects early in the process and not continually revise areas of the proposal that have already been reviewed. We estimate that if the Corps’ directives are even modestly implemented and enforced, it will reduce restoration project review timelines by an average of 9 months - that is worth millions in saved financing costs alone, let alone the benefits that derive from natural infrastructure.
3) Diversify Permitting Pathways.
Consider a river restoration project in Northern California that required 16 permits—for context that is one more permit than what an 800-mile pipeline across Alaska needed. This mismatch highlights how current permitting processes can inadvertently hinder urgent restoration efforts. By diversifying permitting pathways, we can ensure that reviews are appropriately scaled and focused, helping regulators make informed decisions more efficiently.
Different projects require different permitting pathways to ensure regulators get the specific information they need, tailored to the unique nature and impacts of each project type. For example, the permitting requirements for traditional development projects, such as infrastructure construction, differ significantly from those for restoration projects that repair and enhance natural ecosystems. Yet, restoration projects often face similar or even greater scrutiny than development projects, slowing their progress despite their critical role in protecting communities and enhancing resilience to disasters.
This approach isn’t about cutting corners—it’s about effectively developing permitting pathways that prioritize efficiency and clarity, so we can advance critical projects without compromising environmental safeguards or slowing down the progress needed to support, protect, and restore communities.
4) Let’s make systemic changes, not just simple fixes.
Don’t assume page limits and deadlines will automatically create efficiencies. This is such a tempting, “simple fix” - but time and again we’ve learned that they can’t succeed on their own because they don’t address some underlying pain points of having inefficient processes to begin with. When deadlines are set, people find workarounds or push steps outside of the formal process – let’s focus on things that actually speed up the process.
For example, in our work on mitigation bank review processes, we learned there is a deadline set in regulations, and Corps staff have to track the time it takes them to review proposals. Why isn’t that enough? It’s because no one knows whether the Corps is keeping to their timelines because it is never made public. That’s a biggie. When you don’t have information on performance, it’s a game of pointing fingers: “You’re too slow!” “No, you’re too slow!” Following our data analysis and public reports, leadership in the Corps of Engineers acknowledged their history of missed deadlines and identified multiple specific pathways to speed up the process while maintaining a focus on the same quality of ecological outcomes.
5) Make the data and information about permits publicly accessible.
There is no central repository about what has been built, the data about those projects, nor how it was litigated. EPIC’s most recent experience with a Freedom of Information Act request was that ‘public’ information about wetland permits took over 9 months and about a dozen reminder emails and calls to obtain. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not more) are spent every year on field surveys for permitting and this information is essentially thrown away - like single-use Keurig cups. Lack of these types of data inhibits people from learning from what has been done before, creating stronger applications, and re-using the rich environmental data from reviews in stewardship. It’s high time to centralize this information and make it publicly accessible. (Read more about this topic here and how Virginia implemented a system to address this issue here.)
6) We need strong and consistent leadership.
Smart permitting requires clear direction from the top that empowers regulators to evolve and adapt existing processes. Deadlines alone cannot overcome the inertia of established agency practices, it requires leadership priority to lend a sense of urgency to permit reviews. Governors in multiple states like Virginia and Washington have issued executive orders requiring agencies to identify and implement permit efficiencies. Leadership can also come at the agency level.
Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality implemented the governor’s Executive Order on permit streamlining by working with staff to establish and track reasonable processing timelines where none existed, publicly report processing times to ensure transparency and hold staff at all levels accountable through performance metrics (see case study). Other state agencies like OIRA in Washington and Arizona’s Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) embraced ‘Lean’ principles and techniques - continuous improvement and implementing improvement plans where permit processes were experiencing delays. In the federal Permit Council’s FAST-41 streamlined review process for large ($200M+) infrastructure projects requiring multi-agency review, agency leaders meet regularly and have the authority to make executive decisions on any conflicts or issues that arise in the review process.
7) Prioritize development of technology systems and hiring of technology talent.
We are big fans of technology to improve decision-making, AND that only works when we have folks within agencies who have the expertise to both inform the development of the tools to actually bolster their workflow and continuously make improvements to the technology to meet user needs. In our review of 40+ permitting technologies, it is clear that agencies have systems in place, but their development and use have not kept pace with 21st-century technology standards. Using product management funding models for technology projects would vastly help update legacy systems and ensure systems stay relevant to current permitting technology needs. And a key complement to this work is hiring people who know how to engage with users to build technology that meets their needs (like product managers - kudos to iPAC and USDA for doing this in recent years!) and investing in the long haul so they can keep systems updated and responsive.
8) Listen to community members.
Permit streamlining must uphold inclusivity and transparency. Past reforms often failed due to weakened Tribal consultation, limited input from affected communities, and restricted access to project data. These barriers erode trust, equity, and the legitimacy of reforms, fueling opposition and legal challenges. It's essential to begin by listening to affected communities, both near and far, to understand how they want project proponents and regulators to address unavoidable impacts from infrastructure projects through actions that provide alternative benefits or amenities. It is critical to provide clear, transparent communication about what projects are being proposed, have simple ways for community members to share their feedback, and have a responsible process for integrating their feedback and communicating BACK about what changes were made based on feedback.
Relating to ecological restoration projects, Louisiana’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) incorporates a rigorous community engagement process in developing its master plan every five years. This engagement process helps the CPRA operate more efficiently and avoid significant delays by ensuring that various community groups have already reviewed the priority projects in the Master Plan.
The National Park Service’s Planning, Environment and Public Comment tool is a great example of an agency system for planning, environmental review and public comments. It synthesizes relevant information for the public with a list of projects and associated documents for open comment, links to project description, meeting notices, comment portal for a simplified access.
9) Streamline and Clarify Rules for Faster Implementation Across Jurisdictions.
Right now it is hard for project proponents to stay educated about rule changes and how agencies are going to implement them. There can be months or years in delay from rule change to guidance from agencies about how permits will be issued. Relatedly, there are often inconsistencies for which agency has authority, as well as overlapping jurisdictions that make it confusing to know how to work effectively across different agencies. This makes it extremely hard for project developers, environmental consultants, and agencies to work effectively together. We need a shorter turnaround time for education and guidance to follow new rules, and the ideas outlined here explain how we could get there.
10) Increase staff capacity.
We need to invest in enhancing regulatory capacity through two key strategies: (1) increasing staff funding and (2) integrating smart technologies to automate time-consuming tasks. First, cutting the budget of a regulatory agency in an attempt to deregulate can backfire. In EPIC’s interviews with more than 50 permit applicants, a lack of agency staffing or staff expertise was universally cited as a primary cause of delays. While ensuring adequate regulatory staffing is essential, it only addresses the time available for permitting. For meaningful improvements, increased staffing must be paired with process enhancements like those outlined above. Second, automating repetitive steps in the permitting process is necessary to making smarter use of regulatory resources. By reducing manual workloads, regulators can dedicate their time to higher-value tasks — reviewing regulations, providing feedback, and making timely decisions.
We are here to work with you to speed up permitting and ensure it delivers real results. As experts in this field, we understand that thoughtful, targeted recommendations like these are the key to achieving meaningful progress. Together, we can build a permitting process that is smart, efficient, and as dynamic as the environmental challenges we face, paving the way for a resilient and sustainable future for all.
Reach out to any one of us via email if you’d like to connect further: Danielle Bissett, Becca Madsen and Jessie Mahr